Jump to content

Talk:Abrupt climate change

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Triggers

[edit]
  • Hi. I put a note on the alteration page for this. It needs some considerable work. More detail on the Younger Dryas and triggers of abrupt climate change such as the Thermohaline circulation and Glacial/Interglacial periods. St91 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's v. much work in progress. I'm no expert on the details of THC and Younger Dryas. Any help you can offer would be coolAndrewjlockley (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference

[edit]

I'll write this down on talk, since I'll probably get interrupted or distracted before I get around to figuring out how to format it for the article. Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (2002) [1] Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's already referenced, mate!Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Cause vs causes

[edit]

The best current theory for the cause of abrupt climate change is the slowing of the ocean's thermohaline circulation (THC). It looks to me, as I start to read the above reference,Alley et al. as though that's only considered the cause of DO events, not of all abrupt climate change. I'll wait for confirmation before editing the article, though. Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, other reference. Alley et al. was already cited, so I didn't mention it above. Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article already makes clear there are a range of causes, but feel free to edit if you think you can improve.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historic events

[edit]

I've reinstated the historic events section with a qualifierAndrewjlockley (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references which appear to use the term as I've discussed. They're closed documents tho, so if anyone could check that would be coolAndrewjlockley (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are thereby saying that you are including references which you do not know whether support your text or not? Have you learned nothing by now?
I've reverted you reinsertion again. You wrote:
"The following events may not be regarded as abrupt climate change, because of their geographical limitations, limited impact, or short duration."
If they are not regarded as ACC, then why include them? Then you wrote:
"However, they could be considered as examples[25][26] and are included for completeness:"
As examples of what exactly? And in completeness of what? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the citations which, as I recall, describe them as ACC. Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then please check the references. And cite for me the page and paragraph of those descriptions, since i have seen the citations. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A cursory glance suggest that little ice age and abrupt climate change are linked in many articles http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?rlz=1C1GGLS_en-GBGB301GB303&sourceid=chrome&q=little%20ice%20age%20abrupt%20climate%20change&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need a "cursory glance" - but directly verifiable connections. Mentioning the LIA in a paleo-paper is rather common. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do the first 3 of these http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q="little+ice+age"+"abrupt+climate+change"&btnG=Search satisfy you? Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No William M. Connolley (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the full version of the Alley et al. paper (the first of your 3)[2] - now find the spot where the reference says that the LIA was abrupt. If you can't, then you can start explaining why you are inserting statements that aren't backed by reliable sources, and isn't in the references that you provide! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

papers rmvd

[edit]

pls explain rmvl of alley and lenton papers Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put them back in if no reason is given for their removal.Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

citations

[edit]

WMC - please evidence your statement in lead re 'archetypal'. I've already asked you for a cite once - please don't strip out my tag as if we should take your word for it. If you don't evidence the stateemnt, I'll cut it. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done your referencing for you. You might like to note that the theory does not explain all observations. Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want polite conversation, may I put it to you that using an edit comment of "drivel" is a rather poor way to begin? You might even want to apologise, perchance William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't use language like that for anyone else, and was only trying to point out the inappropriateness of your edit and the also the personal abuse you so frequently direct at me. Please behave by the same standards you ask of others. (As it's been noted, I won't need to do it again.) As regards the edit: the objection I had was that you took it upon yourself to ascribe that event as the 'archetypal' ACC event without a citation, and to offer a cause - also without a citation. Further, you had the cheek to remove my tag when I asked you to justify it. If you look on the Younger Dryas page, you'll see that the cause you ascribed does not fully fit the data. Other editors have noted bond events (or DO) as the archetypal events, so your WP:POV was neither universal nor supported. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS please don't revert my edits when they were done to support your WP:POV. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like REGW, pls comment here, rather than smashing links (and causing collateral damage whilst you do). Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


more dodgy tagging

[edit]

how can you possibly justify tagging a paper that's solely about the 21st c risk of acc with a 'not in citation given'. I'd love to think of you as a wise old schoolmaster, carefully educating an enthusiastic but careless student. but stuff like this just makes me think that's really not the case at all. Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the paper explicitly notes that its definition of tipping points isn't equal to abrupt climate change (its under the headline "Defining a Tipping Element and Its Tipping Point" (or just search for abrupt)). Do you read the papers? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it doesn't say that ALL of them are not abrupt, does it? Some clearly are. Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the reference anyway, which you seem not to have noticed when you TP AWickert. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your commentary doesn't match reality. Unless of course i have the gift of being psychic (check the timestamps) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry got mixed on times. U happy now? Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Wow, this is complicated. Let's take a step back and define "abrupt climate change". The first sentence says that it occurs over geologically short time-scales (which, depending on who you ask, is somewhere between a few ka and 1 Ma), and then much of the article is about anthropogenic global warming and present-day threats. I believe a clarification of which it is about would greatly help the above debate. This may or may not be difficult to untangle in itself; it is possible that it will need two definitions, one for paleoclimate, and one for now. Awickert (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible. Abrupt in paleo includes stuff like region DO events, as well as much longer PETM and PT type events. Abrupt in context of AGW may refer to the above, but also to sudden (<decadal) events. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would count DO as abrupt, but not PETM. In any event, refs needed William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First hits on google scholar show both modern studies and those of the Paleogene, so I'm saying < a few thousand years (the max. time-resolution of the Paleogene). Awickert (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged - needs a cite. Would you consider the individual spikes of the PETM abrupt, even if you don't consider the whole event to be abrupt? Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag as none of the refs in the article use examples longer than a few thousand years. This does include the PETM; only one spike at the boundary is the PETM - the others have other names. Unfortunately, I think that there is no definition of absolutie climate change (hence no ref) but there are enough refs that use it for rapid things in the Cenozoic (and I couldn't find counterexamples) that it can be said to be generally used for that. If you can find it used for other things, add them, then just change my text. Awickert (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the tag as per Burden. I think that we need to be very sure it's never used for >10000yrs events before rmving.Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who exactly would a >10000 yr event be abrupt to? And the NRC definition rules a >1k year event out as abrupt. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, so I was wrong; I found this paper using the term for extinctions. The first citation used to support my 3ka inference is actually distilled for human impact; if we use that definition, we might as well throw out the geologic part altogether. I will reword the lede again. Awickert (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The citation is from '88 - where (iirc) for instance the PETM was thought to have happened more rapidly. I'll check up with the NRC report.. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an interesting one:
Overpeck, J. T.; Cole, J. E. (2006). "Abrupt Change in Earth's Climate System" (PDF). Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 31: 1–31. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144308.
Which seems to agree with you. Although they rewrite the definition of abrupt, and base it on the assumption that the PETM was a clathrate gun. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check the source. I used the new ref to talk about the P-T boundary, and although it is old and some of the proposed causes have shifted, more precise dating has generally shown more precisely that it happened rapidly (I think within about 300ka now); recent research is relating it to volcanism in the Siberian traps (emplaced through what looks like a large amount of coal). Awickert (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that the use of the term depends on how far back you are looking. Roughly, if the change looks like a vertical spike at the resolution you have available, it is abrupt William M. Connolley (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree: it is based on the resolution, but I have yet to find a source that explicitly says that. Awickert (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be an idea to separate the two parts completely, so that the geological vs. short timescale that AJL ha(s/d) so many problems with gets removed completely - with a push towards a split into Abrupt climate changes on the geological timescale (or something like that) if the section gets large enough. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly we should make it clear. If we're agreed that there are these two senses, the next step is to agree that the one people care most about, and are most familiar with, is the one that matters on GW-type timescales; ie things that can happen much faster than std.gw, ie decades or less. I don't think we need a separate article yet William M. Connolley (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about climate change in general, not global warming specifically. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGU Chapman Conference on Abrupt Climate Change

[edit]

http://www.agu.org/meetings/chapman/2009/ccall/ might prove a useful (re)source William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

anyone got a ref for ice cores?

[edit]

i've seen the ice cores from the end of the younger dryas on telly but i've not seen them in a paper. anyone got a good ref for the sudden change in snow?Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

[edit]

The definitions, examples, and feedbacks described seem the same on these two articles. If they describe the same phenomenon, they should be merged. -Atmoz (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the two articles describe the same thing and use a lot of the same material. They should be merged. Interestingly enough, a Google search for runaway climate change brings up 1,200,000 articles, but only 241,000 for abrupt climate change. This contrasts with a search of Google Scholar which reveals only 40,800 articles for runaway, but 126,000 for abrupt. Apparently, runaway is more of a pop media term, whereas abrupt is more commonly used by actual scientists.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Runaway climate change can be slow, not abrupt. Abrupt climate change need involve no runaway effects. It would be like merging articles women and musician - they may overlap, but often don't. Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentConcur There is so much overlap as it stands these articles are nearly repeating each other so my general preference would be for some sort of merge. However Andrew is right they are not the same thing so how a merge would happen is clearly something to discuss. Polargeo (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better to merge into runaway greenhouse effect or something similar. Abrupt just isn't the right place for it. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur per Atmoz and Curtis. "runaway" is a pop-culture wording in the way it is used here, the Earth doesn't have such a thing. Either turn runaway fully into a description of Venus (ie. how it happened) and other likely runaway scenarios and merge the rest. Or drop runaway completely. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are sci papers referencing the term Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
concur per Atmoz and Curtis and Kim William M. Connolley (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - fundamentally different topics. I agree the duplication should be removed, but I'd suggest that we do it by rewriting Runaway climate change to mainly describe scenarios where positive feedbacks overwhelm negative feedbacks over the long term (a la Venus, or indeed as per James Hansen's recent warnings). "Abrupt" describes speed: a rapid change from one state to another, but both may be relatively stable; this is not the case with "runaway" climate change, i.e. linear instability. Wantok (toktok) 04:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we have a consensus that the articles need to be re-worked to accurately reflect their titles. As per Wantok. Do we remove the merge thing now? These comments are all a year old... 209.6.252.192 (talk)

Major Changes

[edit]

After reading and working with two distinguished professors of paleoclimate change and geology, we edited the page to make it more relevant with current ideas and information on abrupt climate change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.131.149 (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I also agree that major changes need to be done on this page. It is inconsistent with how abrupt climate change is being taught, especially at collegiate levels. Weather and climate are 2 very different things & this article gets them both confused. It is unclear to the reader what is considered a sudden shift in climate or weather. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.198.51 (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Abrupt climate change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abrupt climate change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Abrupt climate change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abrupt graphs

[edit]

It is possible that this graph is also part of his book The Vanishing Face of Gaia. Can someone with book access check? There is also this figure (S14) from Hansen et al. 2016 (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.), showing experimental multi-meter freshwater forcing, might also be appropriate for the article. prokaryotes (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the parts you've been workiing on, it doesn't really look like an encyclopedia article. More like a series of condensed abstracts for a bibliography. I'm not saying you added all that, by the way. Just saying doing more of the same doesn't really strike me as an improvement. Just a list of somewhat related factoids. Are you sure we shouldn't rename this to List of sources that talk about abrupt climate change? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I did several edits in past years those were minor when considering the entirety of the page. Maybe identify more accurately some of the issues, but moving the article seems to be too much. ACC is a well established terminology. I've removed several items today, primarily form the section previously named ACC since 1976 (which I did not contributed to). prokaryotes (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abrupt climate change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IBEX

[edit]

Has anyone considered incorporating the Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) data that indicates one cause of Climate Change we see today is our Solar Systems passage through Interstellar gas? It was launched in 2008 and we've known about this cause/effect since at least 2012.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/interstellar-boundary-explorer-ibex/in-depth/

http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/public/mkivelso/refs/PUBLICATIONS/McComas%20IBEX%20sc.pdf

https://phys.org/news/2012-05-interstellar-boundary-explorer-heliosphere-long-theorized.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtpR8TmZGW4 - Audio is broken

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTnwjd8CF1c


And for those not scientifically oriented, this video does a pretty good job of describing whats happening and its affects on Earth, the Moon, the Sun, and all other planets in our solar system. Including increased temperatures. (p.s. Video includes supporting data links in the header.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p1BZYTK-rM


Mars recorded ground temperature 2 1/2 "Martian years" (The change is not "substantial" but does show an upward trend.)

http://cab.inta-csic.es/rems/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/PLT_GT_mean_evol_LS_10_1631_ing.png (Chart Source)

http://cab.inta-csic.es/rems/en/weather-report-mars-year-33-month-11/


Just curious.

(Philbert) 2605:A000:BFC0:1C:47F:6102:94A6:C043 (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need an RS, not a youtube video. See-also Climate_of_Mars#Solar_irradiance, and Q15 of the Talk:Global warming/FAQ William M. Connolley (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE

[edit]

At the end of 2009, there was a merge discussion in this talk page. At issue was combining with Runaway climate change or Runaway greenhouse effect. There was no consensus. Reading that thread today I noticed something interesting... not a single one of the commenters based their reasoning on reliable sources. They simply opined. No problem, I can't do anything more than opine right now myself. But I thought I'd leave this note for others, or reminder to myself, to study to the RSs to see if a real argument can be made one way or the other based on sources instead of opinion or wikipedians supposed expertise.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abrupt is a distinct development manifesting itself in the ice-core records (or other proxies), runaway -while sometimes confused with abrupt development, usually hints at something far more far reaching, leading to something like Snowball Earth or Venus Syndrome. I suggest to keep this page here, and maybe make the distinctions more clear in both articles. prokaryotes (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A great example of going full circle. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thermokarst

[edit]

This edit seems just right at this place (looking at the rest of the page), it is a general conclusion that this feedback, possibly abrupt (as NASA article points out), is not yet captured by the models. If you NewsAndEventsGuy feel it belongs elsewhere please move it there, instead of just erasing it. prokaryotes (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of potentially abrupt feedbacks, and you should know this if you actually read the Steffen houthouse paper you added in various places. Why should this one be featured in the section titled "general" and not the others? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC) PS A genderal discussion about climate models, and their ability to model possible abruptness would be fine. Somewhere other than "general" we might list a few examples and steer people to Climate change feedback, which is the place to get into more detail. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you are correct it could be more comprehensive, but since there are a few examples in the precursor section already, would you agree to add it there? I think the main take away from the new NASA study is that the models do not account for it. Yet, climate modelling is usually what guides current policy decisions, and public discourse. Thus, it seems significant enough to point this out, if it is connected to abrupt changes. prokaryotes (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I am fine with pointing this out at the CCF article too. prokaryotes (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added a new sub-section on models, after thinking some more, this appears to be the better spot to elaborate on this situation. prokaryotes (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ocean acidification

[edit]

In this edit I removed "rapid ocean acidification" form the list of effects. Sure there's correlation in the RS between PETM and acidification. Sure its a hugely important biogeochemical issue. Sure it has a direct impacts on three components of the climate system(hyrdo-, litho-, and bio- spheres). But this source does not say that abrupt climate change caused the acidification. Interestingly, other text and sources in this article suggest a feedback between deglaciation and volcanism. I suppose writ large such a dynamic could pump enough stuff into the air to acidify the oceans, but they're still trying to constraing deglaciation and volcanism in the first place. I suppose too that a large ocean acidification event could have sufficiently large impacts on the climate systems components that if we only knew enough we might be able to include ocean acidification as an element in the feedback loops that drive still more climate change. But as it stands, I'm unaware of RSs that say acidification is either a contributing element in climate forcing or a result of climate change. If you do know of such sources, educate me please! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions

[edit]

From IPCC

  • 2000 IPCC TAR WG1 Glossary - There is no entry for "abrupt climate change". Instead, there is an entry for Rapid Climate change
Rapid climate change - The non-linearity of the climate system may lead to rapid climate change, sometimes called abrupt events or even surprises. Some such abrupt events may be imaginable, such as a dramatic reorganisation of the thermohaline circulation, rapid deglaciation, or massive melting of permafrost leading to fast changes in the carbon cycle. Others may be truly unexpected, as a consequence of a strong, rapidly changing, forcing of a non-linear system.
Abrupt climate change - The nonlinearity of the climate system may lead to abrupt climate change, sometimes called rapid climate change, abrupt events or even surprises. The term abrupt often refers to time scales faster than the typical time scale of the responsible forcing. However, not all abrupt climate changes need be externally forced. Some possible abrupt events that have been proposed include a dramatic reorganisation of the thermohaline circulation, rapid deglaciation and massive melting of permafrost or increases in soil respiration leading to fast changes in the carbon cycle. Others may be truly unexpected, resulting from a strong, rapidly changing forcing of a nonlinear system.
Abrupt climate change - A large-scale change in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists (or is anticipated to persist) for at least a few decades and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC

An abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system crosses a threshold, which triggers a transition into a new state that may have large and widespread consequences
Abrupt climate change - Change in the climate system on a timescale shorter than the timescale of the responsible forcing. In the case of anthropogenic forcing over the past century, abrupt change occurs over decades or less. Abrupt change need not be externally forced. (CSSR, Ch. 15)
I've added the two NCA definitions. I think that the 2017 NCA definition might be the most useful, in the sense that they make a distinction between abrupt climate change in general and the anthropogenic case. All of our sources are primarily focussed on global warming, and not 'general' Earth science sources. If we choose one of those definitions for our article, we should choose one as it is more broadly used in climate science I think. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar cleansing

[edit]

In the General section is this sentence: "It has been postulated that teleconnections, oceanic and atmospheric processes, on different timescales, connect both hemispheres during abrupt climate change."

This seems a tad bit clumsy. I'm not even sure what that means. Might I suggest "It has been postulated that teleconnections -- oceanic and atmospheric processes on different timescales -- connect both hemispheres during abrupt climate change"?

Frunobulax (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nuances between climate tipping and external forcing events

[edit]

Hi there as far as I understand the article it is the same thing as the concept as "climate tipping" (not to be confused with the "tipping points"), or is it something different?

Also since the article defines abrupt climate change as a change that overtakes the speed of change expected/induced by the levels of external forcing, if I understand it correctly, then it doesnt talk about forcing events e.g. such as cataclysmic asteroid impacts. Is that true? Is there source that differentiates these two phenomena of climate alteration? Nsae Comp (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thoroughly digested the article Climate system ?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? What part are you refering to? Nsae Comp (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You asked Is there source that differentiates these two phenomena of climate alteration? Maybe I'm having a small brain day but I understood "these two phenomena" to be asking for a discussion that compares processes internal to the climate system to external forcing mechanisms. If you meant something else, please clarify. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification and sorry for my unclear questions. So your comment is regarding the second question; well I am simply asking if this article includes cataclysmic events and not just changes due to triggering tipping points. As far as I the understand the lead the article does not include cataclysmic events like asteroid impacts. Am I right with this understanding?
Because at the moment I only included links to cataclysmic events in the see also section. Though if they are included by the framing of this article, then it needs a section regarding such events (and maybe how they compare and differ to climate tipping). Nsae Comp (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent question! Any day IPCC WG1 should release its contribution to AR6 but for now see AR5 Tech summary page 70 (link is on this page). I see your point... and asteroid impact seems to fit the definition just as this layman sits on his couch musing things over. But IPCC in that section is really trying to focus on potential "thresholds" of phenomena that are internal to the climate system. If you can find sources that include acute external forcings in the concept of "abrupt" by all means, let's talk about 'em. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just found out that in fact the allready included source does mention meteorites in a footnote. See my edition. Nsae Comp (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good find, and its not just in the footnotes..... the first paragraphs in the source's preface includes this disclaimer This report is an attempt to describe what is known about abrupt climate changes and their impacts, based on paleoclimate proxies, historical observations, and modeling. The report does not focus on large, abrupt causes—nuclear wars or giant meteorite impacts—but rather on the surprising new findings that abrupt climate change can occur when gradual causes push the earth system across a threshold.
This seems to argue for some structural changes in the headings of the main body, so we can distinguish between the climate system crossing a threshold and more acute external causes, and then elaborate on each.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:NewsAndEventsGuy, two years on and I am wondering what your thoughts are on this article now? Have those structural changes in the headings been made in the meantime? I wonder about the section called "General": it would be good to find a better title for it. The idea with this article is to explain abrupt climate changes in pre-historic times and then also talk a bit about our current situation but without overlapping too much with related articles such as tipping points in the climate system, right? Overall, what do you think of the quality of this article, and what are its flaws currently? Pinging also Nsae Comp EMsmile (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my memory is so bad that I cant even remember that I knew this article/talk. So I am not much helpt to comment. Nsae Comp (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've dissolved the section that was called "general" now, and moved the content around a bit; also deleted outdated or repetitive content. EMsmile (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 201 Thu

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vermi1ion (article contribs).

Removed further reading list

[edit]

I've removed the further reading list as I don't think that this long list is adding value here:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abrupt_climate_change&oldid=1230906770"